Illinois Court Nixes Jurisdiction When Injury and Employment Contract Were in Indiana

In an unpublished decision, an Illinois appellate court reversed a decision of a county circuit court confirming an award of workers’ compensation benefits by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission on the grounds that the injured worker’s injury occurred in Indiana and the last act necessary to form a contract of hire between the parties also occurred in Indiana after the claimant reported to the relevant jobsite [Industrial Contractors Skanska v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 2021 IL App (4th) 210003WC-U, 2021 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1583 (Sept. 21, 2021). In light of the fact that the injury arose outside Illinois and the contract of employment was also extraterritorial, the appellate court indicated the Commission had no jurisdiction over the case.

Background

Claimant, a resident of Illinois, is an electrician and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 538 in Danville, Illinois. The respondent is an electrical contractor based in Evansville, Indiana. Claimant was hired by the respondent as an apprentice electrician in July 2014. It was undisputed that claimant sustained a compensable injury in the course of and arising out of her employment with the respondent.

Claimant testified that under the IBEW’s “inside labor agreement,” which applied in her situation, she could be rejected by an employer after being sent to a job site. She also testified that when she presented herself to the job site on July 21, 2014, she was “an applicant.”

The arbitrator found, however, that under Illinois law, the place of contract for hire arose as the “sole factor” in determining whether Illinois had jurisdiction over the case. Noting that claimant could not refuse the assignment once the phone call was placed to claimant’s union hall in Illinois and claimant was given a referral to the job site, the arbitrator found that the contract arose at the time. The Commission affirmed, with one commissioner dissenting, and the county circuit court confirmed.

Sole Issue Was Jurisdiction

The court initially noted that the sole issue raised in the appeal was whether the Commission had jurisdiction over the case. Under the Act, jurisdiction extended to "persons whose employment is outside of the State of Illinois where the contract of hire is made within the State of Illinois" [820 ILCS 305/1(b)(2) (West 2014)]. The court stressed that language in the labor agreement between the respondent and the union clearly stated that the union was the exclusive referral agent for the respondent and that the respondent retained a right to reject a referred individual.

Here, the claimant had to fill out an application after reporting to the respondent’s work site. The respondent had a right to reject claimant even after she completed safety training. Claimant admitted in her own testimony that under the IBEW’s “inside labor agreement,” she could be rejected by an employer after being sent to a job site. Based on the foregoing, the appellate court concluded that the last act necessary to form a contract for hire between the parties occurred in Indiana after claimant reported to the respondent’s job site. Thus, the Commission's decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.